Jump to content

Talk:Proclamation of the Irish Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page move

[edit]

The Easter Proclamation article and its associated talk page were moved to Proclamation of the Irish Republic on 2 June 2007. Scolaire 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clarke

[edit]

The Tom Clarke on this page links to a very different Tom Clarke. Is there any way to fix that?

Done. It could probably use a little work though. Turned out substantially longer than I thought it would when I started. Can you get the link on this page to direct to it? Thanx -R. fiend

Nevermind. I think I got it to work. -R. fiend

  • Nicely done. I gave it a brief once-over for spelling and wikiformatting. A very informative article, hope you'll do others as well! -- Nunh-huh 23:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanx. I've done a couple more, and there are now articles for most of the proclamation signatories; do you think you can put up links for all 7 on this page? Someone did a Joseph Plunkett stub which I was considering expanding on sometime, so the only red link is Thomas MacDonagh, which I also may work on soon.

Feel free to look over Sean MacDermott and Eamonn Ceannt and make necesary changes, you did a good job on the Tom Clarke one. -R. fiend

Here you go, just a matter of putting them in double brackets:

Copy in the GPO

[edit]

This is on display in the Philatelic Office and is not well signposted. It is, however, an original copy signed by the person who picked it up in 1916, and has a very good explanatory text beside it. Scolaire 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

If it's officially referred to as "Proclamation of the Republic", why is it here at "Easter Proclamation" (which is a very ambiguous title, even if the former doesn't say which Republic).

zoney ♣ talk 12:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the 'Easter Proclamation' because it was proclaimed on Easter Monday 1916, but, yeah, I agree with you, 'Proclamation of the Irish Republic' would be a better title.

Scolaire 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Proclamation captures it best in English, resurrection, rebirth, renewal etc. El Gringo 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...that the Rising's leaders, though unelected, spoke for Ireland...

[edit]

I asked this question on jtdirl's talk page:

"In reverting my edit (it was me although I forgot to log in), you say: "some rebels are elected. This lot weren't." Surely a rebellion is an action against an elected government? I checked out the Rebellion article in Wikipedia and I can't see any mention of rebels who were elected. Can you give me some examples?"

jtdirl has not responded. In any event, since the Proclamation does not say: "Ireland, through us (though we are unelected), summons her children to her flag...", is is not correct to say that that is one of the assertions made in it.

Scolaire 07:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellions can occur through a number of ways involving a number of groups. They include

  • unelected rebels;
  • elected leaders or their supporters excluded from office by a military junta who didn't like the result of an election;
  • supporters of democratic governments deposed in coups;
  • regional separatist movements that have contested elections, etc.

The key thing about the 1916 rebels was that they had no electoral mandate whatsoever. Unlike various groups trying to stage rebellions (usually very badly) in Burma, Greece under the junta, Vichy France, various African states, etc the 1916 leaders had no form of mandate whatsoever. They didn't even have a political party until they took over Griffith's Sinn Féin. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....or a secret organisation until they took over the IRB, which then subverted the Irish Volunteers.--Damac 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Perfectly true. It is important to distinguish between unelected rebels, elected leaders forced to rebellion by being denied power, elected leaders forced to become rebels through coups, etc. In Ireland there was an electoral methodology, albeit that the last general election took place in 1910. It is not saying they were right or wrong (member of my family were involved) simply that they had no electoral mandate behind their actions, because they were unelected. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of fine words, FÉ, but you still have not given a single concrete example (e.g. the name) of a rebel who was elected. Neither have you answered my point that the Proclamation merely asserts that the leaders spoke for Ireland, not that they spoke for ireland though unelected.
That they were unelected is a fact, but the fact is not relevant to an unbiased description of the document. The only concevable reason for inserting the words where they are is to put forward a point of view. That it is a point of view is borne out by your impassioned references to the leaders having "no form of mandate", "taking over Sinn Féin" etc. as well as your description of them in your original edit summary as "this lot". In removing the words I am trying to restore a neutral point of view.
That was your second revert. Please do not do it again.
Scolaire 08:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC) and apologies to anybody that read this before I remembered to sign it. Scolaire 15:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with stating something that 100% of people acknowledge as fact, something stated in every schoolkid's history, something mentioned in every lecture on 1916, the fact that they were unelected? No-one on the planet disputes it. As to not relevant: they declared a state and declared themselves the "Provisional Government" of that state!!! The fact that people doing that were unelected is 100% relevant. Only you see a bias in stating universally acknowledged facts. Deleting universally accepted facts because you imagine a POV in them is seen on Wikipedia as vandalism and treated as much. As to their take over of Sinn Féin, everyone from FSL Lyons to Dorothy Macardle to private papers of Éamon de Valera in UCD all state that that is what they did. Sinn Féin leaders who joined the party in 1916 and 1917 made no secret of the fact. The Brits identified a party that had no links with the Rising as being responsible for it. Rather than start a new party Rising survivors simply took over the party the public, thanks to erronious media reports resulting from Dublin Castle briefings, blamed for the Rising, a perfectly logical action in the circumstances. Griffith said they took it over. De Valera said they took it over. If you don't know what happened, then look at the history books, look at the primary documents, go in to UCD and look at de Valera's papers, look at the accounts that happened at the time. All are 100% agreed that there was a takeover. My family was one of those at the time involved in that takeover. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's three reverts, FÉ.
Scolaire 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in 24 hours. Read the rules. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for a compromise: 'that the Rising's leaders, though unelected, spoke for Ireland (a claim historically made by Irish insurrectionary movements) against the claims of the British state, though unelected, to rule Ireland (a claim historically made by British colonial governments)? El Gringo 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-starter. The issue was that the Irish people had elected their leaders. A set who had not contested an election, much less actually won anything, declared themselves a government over the heads of the elected leaders of the Irish people at the time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the British political state was imposed upon the Irish people by an external force against their will- when was the vote for British rule?- this puts the importance of your entire emphasis on 'elected' politicians in context. In fact it's very much like pointing out that Petain's government was legitimately elected/nominated but ignoring the existence of a powerful German army as the critical factor in Vichy actions. You are, whether wilfully or not, omitting the context of those Irish elections and thus distorting the historical record. You treat the British state, the state which organised those elections, in Ireland as being based on something other than force. That is, quite simply, delusional. El Gringo 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance of Irish history is most amusing. Any chance you might read a history book sometime? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your own brand of education, then? Or, when lost for a genuinely educated response, do you always resort to ad hominem? Your choice. El Gringo 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two degrees (first class) in history. Lecture in Irish and European history. Work with historians daily. Read primary sources for a living. Yours? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough to not be impressed with a mere BA, or for that matter with any individual who feels insecure enough to throw letters around. Now, can you actually answer the question: how, since you claim to be so educated, was British rule based on something other than force? And what were those other things? I'll judge you on your answer, not your claims. El Gringo 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th century (as presumably you know) the Irish people elected politicians, from Grattan through O'Connell (Daniel and Morgan), Saddler and Keogh, Butt, Parnell, Redmond, Healy, Dillon, McCarthy etc al who did not propose Ireland be a totally independent state, but have a structured link with the UK, either through a dual monarchy (Grattan, O'Connell, Griffith) or as a home rule state within the UK (Butt, Parnell, Redmond, Dillon, Healy, McCarthy, etc). Those campaigning for full independence rarely stood for election, when they did were trounced and ended up resorting to rebellions most of which were Faulty Towersesque fiascos. As late as the 1860s mainstream Irish nationalist assemblies ended with the signing of God Save the Queen. The party that later became a vehicle for Irish republicanism, Sinn Féin, was founded to campaign for a dual monarchy in which the British monarch as king of Ireland would reign in Ireland. Irish public opinion from the Act of Union to the First World War, through major broadening of the franchises, was dominated (92%+ of all votes cast) by nationalist parties who did not campaign for complete independence but for a revised relationship with the UK. That was the political reality. But then, if you had read Garvan, Lyons, Macardle, McCarthy, Murphy, Davies, Dunleavy, Coogan or any of the many authors on the era you'd you know that. The fact that you don't suggests you never read them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more accurate to say that your defensiveness on this issue betrays a strong desire to have your interpretation accepted, too strong in fact. Your use of ad hominem in this process, combined with listing a plethora of historians and political scientists to give the impression that you have read widely, points to a very immature writing style and a pointless puerility on your part. Nonetheless, you have still avoided the central issue, namely you are refusing to acknowledge the connection between Britain being the greatest power on earth, and the willingness of Irish politicians to adopt a 'constitutional' approach. You appear to be rejecting any link between the military defeat of the Irish, the predominance of British rule, and the willingness of the Irish to work within the British system. This, quite frankly, defies belief. You fall into that old trap of amateur historians by deeming the conformers to be the converted; by deeming practical acceptance as a means to survive as ideological acceptance of the régime. On this point you have failed to show how is it, if political positions were more than consequences of political reality, that since the mid-eighteeenth century the Catholic/nationalist community has persistently demanded more every time a concession has been achieved? If British rule had been ideologically accepted, as you imply it was, then why did this dynamic persist? Now, I would appreciate it if you could elucidate further and specifically by telling us if British power in Ireland was not shaping the tactics of realistic Irish politicians what was shaping their tactics? This answer would be instantly preferable to another recitation from an undergrad tutorial on 19th century Ireland. At present you are denying the link between both and implying that support for British rule was ideologically based. Was there any relationship between British power and the expressed views of Irish politicians? If not, would the Irish have been happy to be under, say, Luxembourgian rule? If control of force had nothing to do with political choices, then can we draw from that that the Irish as a people just liked being ruled over by others? El Gringo 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two flags

[edit]

"...and made it their military headquarters, flying the new flag of the republic (a green flag with the words 'Irish Republic' emblazoned across it) from the flag-pole instead of the Union Jack which had hitherto flown there. The flag of the military unit that seized the GPO, E Company, a green, white and orange tricolour, was also flown on a lower flag-pole. The GPO, the Easter Proclamation and the tricolour (which later came to be seen as the flag of the republic, replacing the original green flag, which is now on display in the National Museum of Ireland) are the three most identifiable symbols of the Easter Rising, alongside the leaders, such as Pearse, Tom Clarke, James Connolly and others."

I think this passage is a bit unwieldy, and places too much emphasis on flags, in an article about the Proclamation. I'm also a bit puzzled at the suggestion that the tricolour was the flag of a local IV company, rather than the 70-year-old symbol of Irish unity that most history books tell us it was. Finally, I would suggest that the 'Irish Republic' flag, rather than the tricolour, was the most identifiable symbol of the Rising. Therefore I propose to replace the foregoing with:

"...and made it their military headquarters, flying the new flag of the republic (a green flag with the words 'Irish Republic' emblazoned across it) from the flag-pole instead of the Union Jack which had hitherto flown there. This flag, the GPO and the Proclamation are the three most identifiable symbols of the Easter Rising, along with the Rising's leaders, the seven signatories of the Proclamation"

I am also moving the "Principles of the proclamation" paragraph to after the text, since it is essentially a commentary on the text.

Scolaire 18:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. That is what the National Museum, which owns the flags, says. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being such a baby!
This is not your article. Reasonable edits made in good faith cannot be reverted just like that.
This has gone way beyond a joke!
Scolaire 21:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting chunks of information that doesn't suit your personal POV is vandalism. Users have been blocked as vandals for removing chunks of articles to push their POV agenda. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Deep breath. Try again. I have no particular POV as regards flags. But the Proclamation is a piece of paper and the flag is a piece of fabric and I think that a long discussion of one in an article about the other is distracting, and no offence intended to the original author. It might be usefully moved to the Easter Rising main article or the Flag of Ireland article. I am doing a slightly less radical edit now, and I encourage anybody to edit further, but please do not simply revert, because an article cannot grow if one editor clings to his or her own text.
Scolaire 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

The infobox is beautifully laid out, but unfortunately it is just too large for an article of this size, especially when there are other graphics close to the top. I hope you don't mind that I have shortened it so that the items most relevant to this article are displayed. Scolaire 08:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is now much shortened, the infobox still does not fit in here without disrupting the text. You have now created a very nice shortenened version for documents which I think is ideal for here since (a) this is an article about a document, (b) the infobox links to the larger one and (c) the larger one is now on the main Easter Rising article, which is as it should be.
Scolaire 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Though unelected' revisited

[edit]

I still feel strongly that these two words are POV. My reasoning is as follows:

  • Without the two words the section reads: "The document consisted of a number of assertions...that the Rising's leaders spoke for Ireland". This is NPOV and in fact stating the obvious, since the text is right there in the previous section.
  • With the two words the section effectively reads: "The document consisted of a number of assertions...that the Rising's leaders spoke for Ireland, which was not in fact true". I'm not saying this is right or wrong, only that it is POV.

I hope that adequately explains my reasons for deleting these two words.
Scolaire 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Christ, are we expected to believe the British went around canvassing for votes when they sent Humphrey Gilbert, Richard Bingham and Oliver Cromwell over to Ireland? The merchants of genocide are now really the merchants of democracy? And there was I thinking that in May 1613 the British overthrew the entire Irish parliament. The Irish people never voted for the British occupation of Ireland, which the Rising's leaders were trying to overthrow. Never. The sentence as it stands implies that that occupation had democratic legitimacy. It never, ever, ever did. 86.42.82.239 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it did. (92.3.148.100 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Easter Proclamation vs Exultet

[edit]

The Exultet (a catholic hymn) is greatly referred to as the 'Easter Proclamation' - a cursory Google search will corroborate this. I was puzzled to find myself reading about an utterly dissimilar article when I searched for 'Easter Proclamation'. I have disambiguated the matter by adding a sentence at the beginning of the article. Chris Buttigieg 10:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name revisited

[edit]

In the light of the above, and following on from an earlier discussion, I propose to move this article to Proclamation of the Irish Republic (which Mike Rosoft has very kindly created for us) and make this article a disambiguation page. Scolaire 07:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its more commonly known as the "Easter Proclamation" - but possibly move it to "Proclamation of the Irish Republic" with the original page pointing towards both the hymn and the Proclamation.--Vintagekits 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to agree with the move. Seems to be a more proper title. -R. fiend 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur Brendandh 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Scolaire 10:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the signatories / See also

[edit]

In the "see also" section I have reverted to the names as they appear on the proclamation, elsewhere I have reverted to the names by which they were commonly known (see my comments on the Talk:Thomas Clarke (Irish republican) page).
Also, why are there so many entries in the "See also" section? Most of them have no direct relevance to the Proclamation, only a vague connection in that they deal with Irish history of the 1916-1922 period.
Scolaire 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Irishrep.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author

[edit]

Who was the primary author of the proclamation? Pearse? The article mentions the signatories, but not who actually wrote it. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was written by the seven signatories. Pearse and Connolly are generally considered to have had the most input, but there is no evidence as to who wrote any specific bit. Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who reads the proclamation and then reads Pearse's poetry can hardly doubt that he was the major contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbishop (talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-German

[edit]

I think the article should mention that the Proclamation praised the Germans as "gallant allies" of the treasonable uprising. (92.3.148.100 (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Apart from "treasonable", which is one point of view (and I am bound to assume good faith and not suggest that it was deliberately provocative) I don't disagree with you. Be bold, but make sure whatever you say is NPOV and verifiable.
By the way, "gallant allies in Europe" is linked to the German Empire article, so in a way it already does mention it. Scolaire (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Scolaire notes, the "gallant allies" is mentioned in the article. However this editor's disruption and insistence that this minor part of the Proclamation needs mentioning in as many articles as possible, even when more important parts of the Proclamation are not mentioned, is becoming tiresome. O Fenian (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Gallant Allies" surely meant the Central Powers and not just Germany. You all should try reading some European history as well.86.42.193.110 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can demonstrate that there had been any direct political/military contact with other 'Central Powers' then fine, but perhaps you should do some basic research yourself before posting instructions to others. RashersTierney (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the Volunteers accepted aid from Germany in the form of second-hand weapons (which never made it to Ireland, the ship they were carried on was scuttled by its captain, and captain and crew seized by the British), there has never been any proof of official political ties. There has never been evidence of ANY ties whatsoever with the other central powers. TDiNardo (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The "gallery" - photos of the seven signatories - does not IMO add anything to the article. As I said in my edit summary when I reverted it the first time, it is unnecessary and intrusive. The second attempt, a collapsible effort with a dark green bar, is truly hideous. There is no reason why there should not be photographs in the article, but the gallery should be abandoned. Scolaire (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text

[edit]

Very poor article. I went to it looking for the text of the Proclamation! Where is it? Most people want to see the words in a clearly readable way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donn300, if you scroll down to See also, you will see an icon and a link that says, "Wikisource has original text related to this article: Proclamation of the Republic". Click it and you will get the text. This is an encyclopaedia article; Wikisource is for the source texts. You wouldn't go to the Bible article and expect to find the whole text there, would you? I agree with you that this article is not in great shape. Perhaps you could help towards improving it? Scolaire (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An actually signed copy

[edit]

I've been looking at this article (mainly prompted by reading Professor James Mosley's articles on the topic) and I'm not convinced by the claim that:

The language suggested that the original copy of the proclamation had actually been signed by the Rising's leaders. However no evidence has ever been found, nor do any contemporary records mention, the existence of an actually signed copy, though had such a copy existed, it could easily have been destroyed in the aftermath of the Rising by someone (in the British military, a member of the public or a Rising participant trying to destroy potentially incriminating evidence) who did not appreciate its historic importance.

The National Archives interview with Michael Molloy, who actually printed it, explains on the fifth page of his testimony that the signatories visited Connolly's office one by one, starting with Plunkett, and signed over a period of about half an hour while the printers were getting started. (He doesn't give details of the signatories besides Plunkett.) He then says that he still had the piece of paper with the signatures when he was arrested, which he chewed up in his cell to destroy it. He notes that he was told what order to list the signatories in too.

This all seems pretty clear to me. Is there some reason for believing he got this wrong? Blythwood (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason. Molloy's witness statement was in 1952. In 1953 he filled in a questionnaire, and when asked was he certain that they were the actual signatures he answered "James Connolly, yes, not so sure of the others." In the same enquiry, the other compositor, Liam Ó Briain, said that they were not signatures, just names, all in the same handwriting, which was the same as on the proclamation, and which he believed was Pearse's handwriting. There is a chapter devoted to this question in John O'Connor's The 1916 Proclamation. The conclusion was that there was "no proof that there ever existed a signed original of the Proclamation". The paragraph in the article probably should be edited to reflect O'Connor's work, rather than the unsourced opinion of the original author.
Molloy's description of the signatories going in one by one, starting with Plunkett, is also at odds with Kathleen Clarke's version in Revolutionary Woman, where she says (p. 69) that Clarke told her the other six had insisted upon him being the first signatory. That would mean they all had to be in the room together when it was signed (although she subsequently says on p. 70, "I was positive that Tom had said he had signed, but there has been so much denial about it that I am now in doubt"). It is also inconsistent with the printed Proclamation, where Plunkett's signature is the last, not the first. Scolaire (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Sounds like these would be great points to add to the article. As you've gathered I'm no expert on this topic! One other question based on Mosley's article I'm curious about since I don't have the book. Mosley says that most copies of the original proclamation were lost early on, and shows a Dublin police file in which notes say they haven't found a copy (certainly in May and I think on the 20th June too - it seems to say not; I can't read the writing above but that seems like it could say 'copies are obtained, 12.5.16'). So were there reprints of the text? Would the average person in Dublin (let's assume they were out of town over Easter) in early summer 1916 have had a clue what the proclamation said? The notes on the file are ambiguous as to whether they just didn't have an actual physical copy of the proclamation itself or whether they didn't even know what it said. (So the original typed message uses the words 'a copy of the lower half of the above proclamation' which seems to imply they had some reproduction of it like a photograph, but then it says 'no complete copy is obtainable', and the 11th May note to the right says 'I have not been able to get a complete copy of this proclamation' - the 'this' to me implying they were't too knowledgeable about it...?) Blythwood (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that they had a copy of the lower half is that the compositors didn't have enough type for the whole Proclamation, so it had to be printed in two goes – first the top half and then the bottom. The printing press in Liberty Hall was still set up with the bottom half when the soldiers entered it after the bombardment, so they were able to make copies. This is all in the article.
Most of the posters were simply torn down and destroyed; a few were kept as souvenirs. The text, however, was printed in the papers. You'll notice in that memo you linked to that somebody has written "he and others must be content with the reprint in the 'Irish Times' Weekly jrnl dated 13th [May 1916]." So yes, the authorities were fully cognizant with the content of the Proclamation, and the general public had access to it. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Have made some slight changes to my edits based on this. Blythwood (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Scolaire (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In his Bureau of Military History witness statement, compositor Michael Molloy http://bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie/reels/bmh/BMH.WS0716.pdf#page=5 says that the signatures were provided on a separate piece of paper from the text of the Proclamation, and when he was a prisoner in Richmond Barracks he realised that this would endanger the signatories and so he tore it up and chewed and swallowed it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pageturners (talk • contribs) 07:44, 31 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was said in the very first post in this section. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The taking of the GPO

[edit]

I previously reverted an edit blanking the section "The taking of the GPO", but this time I'm going to leave it. It was actually a totally unencyclopaedic section, talking about everything but the Proclamation. Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the Proclamation

[edit]

It is normal Wikipedia style for the text of foundational documents to be part of their Wikipedia entry – this is done, for example, in the Wikipedia entries for the US Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, etc. The text of the Proclamation should be part of this page. Pageturners (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text was in the article until 28 October 2013, when it was removed because it was on Wikisource. It was not added again until a few days ago, when I reverted because I assumed there was a consensus not to have it. I have no strong feelings either way. Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important that it be in the article; as I've said, the norm for foundational documents is that the text is included. (I took a look around various Wiki entries for these, and the only one I found where the text was not included was the Magna Carta - maybe it's too long. I thought I'd put the text in a few times; I may be wrong. Normally, if I edit a page and it's reverted I shrug and leave it alone, feeling that it's not so important if someone else feels very passionately about it, even if their reversions are incorrect. But in this case I do think it's important that the text be included. It's not a long text; it is seminally important in Ireland - for instance, it was read into the record by Cathal Brugha at the first meeting of the First Dail - it is the heart of the country's values. As a relatively casual Wikipedia user, I wouldn't know to go and look in Wikisource (what's that?) and doubt that most others would. I strongly request that the text of the Proclamation be added to, kept in and protected in the Wikipedia entry about the Proclamation. Pageturners (talk)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Proclamation of the Irish Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proclamation_of_the_Irish_Republic&oldid=1207298471"